Top

Journal of Cancer Survivorship

Published in:

01-06-2015

Assisted reproductive outcomes of male cancer survivors

Authors: Ainhoa García, María Belén Herrero, Hananel Holzer, Togas Tulandi, Peter Chan

Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship | Issue 2/2015

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of our study was to evaluate the reproductive outcome of male cancer survivors treated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using cryopreserved sperm and compare it with the same treatment in non-cancer males.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed database derived from cancer and non-cancer patients undergoing sperm cryopreservation from August 2008 to August 2012 at a university-based center. We evaluated the reproductive outcome of those cancer and non-cancer patients that had frozen sperm and returned subsequently to the clinic for assisted reproduction.

Results

We studied 272 males with cancer and 296 infertile males. The most prevalent types of cancer in our cohort were lymphoma (25.3 %), testicular cancer (19.2 %), leukemia (7.3 %), and other malignancies including sarcoma, gastrointestinal, and central nervous system malignancies (48.2 %). The use rate of cryopreserved sperm was 10.7 % for cancer patients and 30.7 % for non-cancer patients. The mean age of males with cancer who returned to the clinic for fertility treatment was 36.7 ± 6 years, and the diagnoses were testis cancer (43.4 %), lymphoma (36.9 %), leukemia (13 %), and other malignancies (6.7 %). Live birth rate of the cancer cohort was 62.1 %, which was higher than that of the normospermic non-cancer population (p < 0.0047).

Conclusions

The use rate of cryopreserved sperm from oncofertility preservation cases is at around 10 %. The live birth rate using assisted reproductive technologies among these patients is at least comparable to that of the non-cancer population.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

To our knowledge, this was the first comparative study of male cancer survivors treated with ICSI using cryopreserved sperm, which were compared to non-cancer males undergoing the same treatment. Male fertility preservation is a highly valued service that should be strongly encouraged prior to beginning cytotoxic cancer treatment. These results can help healthcare professionals in oncology to improve the quality of counseling on fertility preservation when managing young men with newly diagnosed cancer that require gonadotoxic treatment.

Fernbach A, Lockart B, Armus CL, Bashore LM, Levine J, Kroon L, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for fertility preservation options for inclusion in treatment protocols for pediatric and adolescent patients diagnosed with cancer. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2014;31(4):211–22.CrossRefPubMed

Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(1):9–29.CrossRefPubMed

Schover LR. Patient attitudes toward fertility preservation. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;53(2):281–4.CrossRefPubMed

Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(5):1224–31.CrossRef

Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH, Patrizio P, Wallace WH, Hagerty K, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(18):2917–31.CrossRefPubMed

Pacey AA, Eiser C. The importance of fertility preservation in cancer patients. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014;14(5):487–9.CrossRefPubMed

Goossens E, Tournaye H. Male fertility preservation, where are we in 2014? Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2014;75(2):115–7.CrossRef

Kim ED. Controversy over the use of fresh versus frozen–thawed sperm for in vitro fertilization–intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(2):336.CrossRefPubMed

Anger JT, Gilbert BR, Goldstein M. Cryopreservation of sperm: indications, methods and results. J Urol. 2003;170(4 Pt 1):1079–84.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Shufaro Y, Schenker JG. Cryopreservation of human genetic material. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1205:220–4.CrossRefPubMed

11.

WHO. World Health Organization WHO laboratory manual for examination and processing of human semen. 5th edition: Cambridge University Press 2010

12.

Bhattacharya S, Maheshwari A, Mollison J. Factors associated with failed treatment: an analysis of 121,744 women embarking on their first IVF cycles. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e82249.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

13.

Son WY, Chung JT, Henderson S, Reinblatt S, Buckett W, Chan PT, et al. Fertilization and embryo development with spermatozoa obtained from testicular sperm extraction into oocytes generated from human chorionic gonadotropin-primed in vitro maturation cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):989–93.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zarutskie PW, Muller CH, Magone M, Soules MR. The clinical relevance of sex selection techniques. Fertil Steril. 1989;52(6):891–905.PubMed

15.

Schover LR. Rates of postcancer parenthood. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(3):321–2.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Botchan A, Karpol S, Lehavi O, Paz G, Kleiman SE, Yogev L, et al. Preservation of sperm of cancer patients: extent of use and pregnancy outcome in a tertiary infertility center. Asian J Androl. 2013;15(3):382–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

17.

Hourvitz A, Goldschlag DE, Davis OK, Gosden LV, Palermo GD, Rosenwaks Z. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using cryopreserved sperm from men with malignant neoplasm yields high pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):557–63.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ping P, Zhu WB, Zhang XZ, Yao KS, Xu P, Huang YR, et al. Sperm banking for male reproductive preservation: a 6-year retrospective multi-centre study in China. Asian J Androl. 2010;12(3):356–62.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

19.

Schmidt KL, Larsen E, Bangsboll S, Meinertz H, Carlsen E, Andersen AN. Assisted reproduction in male cancer survivors: fertility treatment and outcome in 67 couples. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(12):2806–10.CrossRefPubMed

20.

van Casteren NJ, van Santbrink EJ, van Inzen W, Romijn JC, Dohle GR. Use rate and assisted reproduction technologies outcome of cryopreserved semen from 629 cancer patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(6):2245–50.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dohle GR. Male infertility in cancer patients: review of the literature. Int J Urol. 2010;17(4):327–31.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bahadur G, Ozturk O, Muneer A, Wafa R, Ashraf A, Jaman N, et al. Semen quality before and after gonadotoxic treatment. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(3):774–81.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bonetti TC, Pasqualotto FF, Queiroz P, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Sperm banking for male cancer patients: social and semen profiles. Int Braz J Urol. 2009;35(2):190–7. discussion 7–8.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hotaling JM, Lopushnyan NA, Davenport M, Christensen H, Pagel ER, Muller CH, et al. Raw and test-thaw semen parameters after cryopreservation among men with newly diagnosed cancer. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):464–9.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Johnson MD, Cooper AR, Jungheim ES, Lanzendorf SE, Odem RR, Ratts VS. Sperm banking for fertility preservation: a 20-year experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):177–82.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Grigorescu V, Zhang Y, Kissin DM, Sauber-Schatz E, Sunderam M, Kirby RS, et al. Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology by infertility diagnosis: ovulatory dysfunction versus tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(4):1019–25.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Harb HM, Gallos ID, Chu J, Harb M, Coomarasamy A. The effect of endometriosis on in vitro fertilisation outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2013;120(11):1308–20.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Templeton A, Morris JK, Parslow W. Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet. 1996;348(9039):1402–6.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Dean JH, Chapman MG, Sullivan EA. The effect on human sex ratio at birth by assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures—an assessment of babies born following single embryo transfers, Australia and New Zealand, 2002–2006. BJOG. 2010;117(13):1628–34.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Hesketh T, Min JM. The effects of artificial gender imbalance. Science & society series on sex and science. EMBO Rep. 2012;13(6):487–92.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

31.

Check JH, Kwirenk D, Katsoff D, Press M, Breen E, Baker A. Male:female sex ratio in births resulting from IVF according to swim-up versus Percoll preparation of inseminated sperm. Arch Androl. 1994;33(1):63–5.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Hentemann MA, Briskemyr S, Bertheussen K. Blastocyst transfer and gender: IVF versus ICSI. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26(8):433–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

33.

Maalouf WE, Mincheva MN, Campbell BK, Hardy IC. Effects of assisted reproductive technologies on human sex ratio at birth. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1321–5.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Chang HJ, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. Impact of blastocyst transfer on offspring sex ratio and the monozygotic twinning rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2381–90.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lin PY, Huang FJ, Kung FT, Wang LJ, Chang SY, Lan KC. Comparison of the offspring sex ratio between cleavage stage embryo transfer and blastocyst transfer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;49(1):35–9.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Luna M, Duke M, Copperman A, Grunfeld L, Sandler B, Barritt J. Blastocyst embryo transfer is associated with a sex-ratio imbalance in favor of male offspring. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(3):519–23.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Setti AS, Figueira RC, Braga DP, Iaconelli Jr A, Borges Jr E. Gender incidence of intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection-derived embryos: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(4):420–3.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Fedder J, Loft A, Parner ET, Rasmussen S, Pinborg A. Neonatal outcome and congenital malformations in children born after ICSI with testicular or epididymal sperm: a controlled national cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1):230–40.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Assisted reproductive outcomes of male cancer survivors
Authors: Ainhoa García
María Belén Herrero
Hananel Holzer
Togas Tulandi
Peter Chan
Publication date: 01-06-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1932-2259
Electronic ISSN: 1932-2267
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-014-0398-7

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Body image in cancer survivors: a systematic review of case-control studies

Effects of web-based intervention on risk reduction behaviors in melanoma survivors

Cancer survivors’ experiences of using survivorship care plans: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Survivorship care planning and its influence on long-term patient-reported outcomes among colorectal and lung cancer survivors: the CanCORS disease-free survivor follow-up study

Long-term health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies by primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience) study

Influence of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer on work status and working life 3 years after surgery

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer